P0p Cu1tur3

Let's get it. 

[irishhaines]

13 Reasons Why: Pros & Cons

Netflix recently premiered their series, 13 Reasons Why, based off of Jay Asher’s Book similarly titled “Thirteen Reasons Why”. This series was long-awaited for both fans of the book and fans who grew interested in the shows concept. It is the story of a girl, Hannah Baker, who tragically kills herself. Before she did it though, she recorded 13 different stories over the course of 6 cassette tapes naming different people on each tape and how they played a role in her final actions. The show has been widely loved and criticized from all over with its regards to mental illness.

Many fans of the show, after they watched it in full, felt as though the message was strong and “about time”. The series shows that little actions can add up till eventually they just explode for someone. It explains the tragic effects of harsh bullying, rumors, and how important reputation can be especially in the mind of high schoolers. Some fans felt particularly in sync with Hannah through their own experiences with depression and suicidal thoughts.

Other viewers were not as impressed. People were angry that the show’s producers blatantly ignored certain warnings given to them from professional health care workers especially when it come to certain graphic scenes including in the show that could dangerously impact teenagers, especially those already fighting for their mental health. Others felt that the simple “trigger warnings” before episodes that showcased aforementioned scenes did nothing to stop nor prepare them for what they actually saw. There’s also the problem that the words “depression” and “mental health” are hardly, if ever, mentioned throughout the entire 13 episodes.

There was also problems with the exact storyline that people did not like. Some people bring up that Hannah’s reasons did not seem drastic enough for neither the act of suicide nor the way she committed while the shows fans defended this saying you can never tell how someone will take your actions. Some compare it to a “how-to” manual on how to go about suicide. Another issue is the idea of romanticizing suicide (that “love” could fix such issues) as well as the typical ‘damsel in distress’ storyline where the male hero is too late.

In my own opinion, I have seen both extreme sides of the spectrum with this show. I have seen people who have never publicly insinuated at mental health issues absolutely love and hate that show. I have also seen people who have dealt with atrocious depression, some of whom have even attempted suicide, who had the same extreme love/hate reactions. I think when it comes down to the brink of it, someone should do their own research, form their own opinion, and decide from there. It is important to remember that one person with a disability with an opinion on something is just that, one person. They are not the voice of the disabled nor the voice of those critically depressed/suicidal.

[irishhaines]

OCD is not “cute quirk”

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD, is a mental health disorder that occurs when a person gets an intense feeling of anxiety and obsession-like tendencies by particular triggers. People suffering from OCD can have recurring, unwanted thoughts, ideas, or sensations that make them feel driven to do something repetitively. These triggers can be anything that can cause the person to feel a need to do something about it such as hand washing, check or counting things multiple times, and/or hoarding and can get as serious as to cause body dysmorphia, trichotillomania (hair pulling disorder), or excoriation (skin-picking disorder). It can also include an strong list of illogical worries or fears. This disorder can severely impact someone’s daily live thus making day to day routines time consuming, tedious, and incredibly stressful.

Of course, this isn’t how we see OCD in the media though. It TV shows, it tends to be a “cutesy” way of saying you like things clean or in a particular way. It is showcased more in a series of pet peeves than it is uncontrollable thoughts and feelings. Sometimes it is seen in a more serious light but even then, it only addresses the “annoying” symptoms like having to count things or being a ‘germaphobe’. It rarely addresses the stress and anxiety of it and more often than not the disorder is shown as a large burden, many times for the people interacting with the one suffering rather than the actual person. More often than not the quirks are also meant to be laughed at, only further invalidating the anxiety issue.

Some examples include:

Sheldon Cooper’s need to knock and call out specifically three times in The Big Bang Theory. 

Monica of F.R.I.E.N.D.S. and her intense cleanliness.

Similar to a previous discussion, it is also sometimes seen as an “evil” attribute, like in this episode of Criminal Minds where the criminal was so because of extreme OCD.

[irishhaines]

Sesame Street has out done themselves with Julia

There is a new favorite children’s character in town, Julia, a new muppet on Sesame Street with autism. She appeared in a digital book of the show in specifics to Autism in 2015 but only just recently made her TV debut. One of Sesame Street’s writers, Christine Ferraro, expressed concerns they had dealt with while creating the characters. She explained that Autism is tricky because it is different for every single diagnosis. A puppet designer from the show, Rollie Krewson, said in an interview that everything about Julia’s design is deliberate from her hairstyle being kept short to stay out of her eyes to her loose-fitting clothes to her eyes being able to close if Julia feels overwhelmed or upset. Even down to the puppeteer controlling Julia, Stacey Gordon, there is a relatable aspect of autism as her son has experience with the disorder. The intense detail was an interesting and appreciated effort that did not go unnoticed.

The concept that Sesame Street was so careful for how Julia would be portrayed is also incredibly powerful, explaining Julia in a broad enough yet kind enough way as to not to completely dismiss other autistic characteristics that she may not portray. This type of inclusion is so critical in media, especially beginning at young children’s media. For kids and parents who do not experience autism on in their daily lives, Julia allows them to see and talk about those who may have different disabilities than their own and thus normalize the experience to an extent. For those who do deal with autism, Julia gives them the opportunity to see themselves reflected and included on Sesame Street.

[irishhaines]

Desexualizing Disability

When there are disabled characters in the media, they are rarely sexualized. If anything, the concept of the disabled being sexually active is more often considered a joke or nonexistent in mainstream media. Disabled characters are gamers, “emos”, nerds, etc., which are all continually desexualized in the media.  This is a direct impact and mirror of real society. Many people are quick to disregard someone with a disability when it comes to getting in a relationship because it’s “weird”, a direct consequence of its lack of normalization in the media. Even in Glee, a show that prided itself on being inclusive and diverse, the disabled student in a wheel chair only had signs of a relationship when he got with someone else disabled (a girl who had a stutter, a girl who got in a car accident and was in a chair for some time, and a “dumb blond” girl who was hinted at disabled). Sex is a bizarre topic as it is but for some reason the media paints sex for disabled as even weirder.

Artie, Glee’s wheelchair character, is showing Quinn, a character who got into a car accident while texting and driving (who is also suddenly interested in Artie since the accident and her own impairment), that being disabled is just as “cool and fun”. 

[irishhaines]

You do not get brownie points for asking someone disabled out

As Prom season comes before us, we are reminded once again that able people are superior to disabled people as they use them as props for self-esteem boosts, reputation points, or an average charity case. As surprising as it may sound, it is possible to ask out a disabled person to prom without alerting your local news stations about it. It seems like an ongoing trend that is only increasing in popularity for someone to make a promposal towards someone specifically mentally disabled (i.e. Autism, Downs Syndrome, etc) and put it all over their social media. They are than cast as a worthy citizen, a hero, a good guy to audiences through news sites as though asking someone out simply because you have deemed them unworthy of the ability to achieve this on their own is cause for an online uproar.  It is especially hurtful, to their image as well as emotionally, when these invitations specify some sort of “as friends” stipulation.

This situation only furthers the stigmas we see in fictional worlds on our television into real world inspiration tales. Because the media paints disabled people in a negative light as people who need attention, consistent help from others, and struggling, able-bodied people view it as an accurate image and portray that helping figuring in their everyday lives.

[irishhaines]

Let’s talk about movie villains and disability

Let’s talk about villains in movies. In order to have a successful movie, you need to have a problem for the hero of the film to face. When this problem manifests itself in human form, we have our antagonist, or our villain. Unfortunately, aspects that are used to push the character as a bad guy typically correlate with aspects of disability.

Take Disney, for example. While Disney villains are typically dark, cunning, and creepy, they are pushed over the ledge into evil with visible attributes. Scar, the sinister character from the Lion King, suffers from being the runt of the litter and gets his name from a rather obvious marking over his eye. The Grasshoppers’ in A Bug’s Life have a secret weapon: Thumper, a pale green, jagged tooth, and seemingly mentally unstable. Perhaps the biggest and most visual disabled villain would be Captain Hook of Peter Pan who is literally missing a limb. These characters would not be the brute, evil doing villains without the help of their disabilities thus painting said disabilities as bad.

This villain stigma does not only find itself in children’s tales either. Whether it be older Westerns (such as Dr. Loveless from Wild, Wild West (1999) who is stuck in a wheelchair without the lower half of his body after an extreme war accident) or science fiction stories based in the future (such as Darth Vader of Star Wars with his prosthetic arms and legs), painting the disabled as evil or sinister is not a new stigma for them to shake off.

Of course, the other side of the narrative must be considered in the conversation. Superheroes, i.e. the character that fights the disabled villain, can be found to have disabilities as well. The problem with this idea though is that their stories typically follow the character transforming their disability into their super power or them learning to overcome despite it. Professor X from the X-Men series is depicted as a paraplegic confined to his wheelchair which has become an iconic image. Daredevil, a superhero who was blinded while helping someone from radioactive material, finds that in the midst of his disability his other senses are heightened while making him tough to kill. Cyborg, one of the most visible disabled superheroes (and questionably mentally traumatized), was created when his parents tried to do multiple experiments on him to make him smarter until one of them goes terribly wrong and the only way to save his life is to cover the boy’s body with mechanical prosthetics and metal limbs. These examples are heroes that overcome their disabilities but by doing so only paints transfers the disabled presentation from pity and sorrow to an inspiration tale.

[irishhaines]

Spread the Word to End the Word

While walking through the SAC (Student Activity Center) on campus the other day, I noticed in the atrium a group of people with signs, many of which stating “Spread the Word to End the Word”. It was an awareness service event being held by Temple University Best Buds, a campus organization geared towards students with disabilities. Having seen their table earlier in the week as well as being informed already on the topic, I knew it was meant spread awareness to get people to stop using “The R-Word”. In case you are unaware, the “R-Word” is the word ‘retard(ed)’. This word is incredibly hurtful because it is exclusive, offensive, and derogatory. This battle to educate on the word itself though is nothing new.

In the 2000’s alone you can find examples of “the R word” being used to associate those who are isolated, crazy, stupid, or other insults towards ones mental capacity with people who are medically mentally disabled.

Black Eyed Peas – Let’s Get Retarded (2003)

Tropic Thunder Scene (2008)

“Mental retardation” was an official medical diagnosis for a developmental disability regarding intellectual functioning level that is well below average as well as critical limits when it comes to daily living skills up until 2010. This is when President Obama signed a bill to replace the term instead with ‘intellectual disability’ (ID). Still it did not stop the public from using the word to associate negative connotations with those disabled.

Family Guy – “Peter sits next to an Autistic lady” (2011)

Shameless – “Retardnation” (2013)

This is why accurate representation is critical. As long as popular culture and mainstream television continue to use this word as a joke punchline or an insult, the public will continue to do it as well. This is why campaigns such as the “End the Word” one are necessary and simple awareness is key. There has been progress in that networks are beginning to band the word from shows (bleeping it out or replacing it) but that is not enough. What we see in the media has a lot of bearing on how we act in society. If the media is saying it is okay, we believe that is the majority opinion and act as such. The media needs to be the first to show respect and continuing to allow and defend the use of such a derogatory term is only back pedaling. 

[irishhaines]

Disability is all over Disney

Something that I have begun to notice while watching Disney movies is that many of that have subliminal aspects of disability used to further the narrative but rarely are they talked about. Finding Nemo’s trio all of something disabled about them (Nemo’s fin, Dory’s memory, Marlin’s PTSD from the tragedy of seeing his wife and eggs attack), Inside Out is a goldmine for mental disorders, Dumbo is both victim to a physical disability of his ears as well as witness to a mistreatment of a mental disability when they lock his mother up. These films trail on the edge these characters are technically disabled characters without being labeled as such. They’re issues are rarely an issue except when they are use to pull the narrative forward or the characters are overcoming them. They are either a super-ability of some kind (when Dumbo learns how to fly) or they are somehow “cured” (Dory’s memory comes back as the movie goes and she is able to remember more and more).

Without ever addressing these disabilities as what they are, Disney paints a picture of those disabled. If they cannot be cured, they become useful. If they are neither, they go unspoken about and ignored. This is animation, you’re not looking for a sense of “realism” one may say but unfortunately for them, this type of message or representations still negatively downs an entire community that is already fighting. While, yes, the idea of overcoming your obstacles is important for all children to see, their world will not end with a happy ending like the movies. Everyone will not suddenly cheer them on like Rudolph after he saved the day. They will still go home disabled after the movie ends and that is what Disney should be showing. The disability does not need to be the spotlight of the film but we need to stop only concerning about it when it becomes useful.

[irishhaines]

If you have the time, check out “What Would You Do?”

I remember finding the show “What Would You Do?” (WWYD) on one random Saturday after Shark Tank and become hooked. The show is a hidden camera reality news television program that revolves around how strangers react in a seemingly everyday situation. They challenge all sort of topics including serious ones like if people would step in to help a lost child, say something to a drunk person about to drive, or step up to pay for a struggling person’s groceries. The scenarios fall into all sorts of categories like race, class, family issues, bullying, sexuality, etc. It not all serious either; there have been cases of whether anyone was going to answer a child asking where babies came from or if strangers would be willing to buy kids alcohol. While there are many scenarios to pick from, I am just going to speak on situations that deal with disability.

WWYD is not new to introducing seemingly every day struggles for someone with a visual handicap (usually not to put the public in a position where they would have to assume a handicap and offending someone without meaning to). You can easily go on YouTube and find clips such as “Women Deny Disabled Man a Handicapped Spot”, “Blind Man Robbed Asking For Help With Wallet”, or “Customer Abuses Employee with Down Syndrome”. While the events taking place in each video may seem dramatic at times, the show does a fair job of acting out situations that these people really deal with. They also are acted out by people with the actual disability that not only make the acting of the event more convincing to the public but adds a sort of validation that the event really does happen. Without stigmatizing these people or disability, the show opens its audience to the real-life struggles of those with disabilities. It also never calls for a pity party for these people but rather just a call for respect. Of course, you can find flaws with the show. The arguments that it only shows extreme sides (for example, it’s either “very few” or “zero” people to help or its “most” or “every take” had people helping) and that a television show is still a business that needs to make money by pulling in viewers should be considered. Overall though, I feel like it is an accurate, realistic form of media especially in regard to disability. 

Clips mentioned: Handicap Spot

Blind Man:

Down Syndrome:

[irishhaines]

"Bigotry and ignorance are not mental illnesses"

Recently in the news, I have been seeing an increase of Trump’s mental wellbeing hitting headlines. While this was a small trend in the beginning of December, it quickly died down only to spark up again. Many supporters and critics alike are using this as an excuse for his behavior and it is infuriating. People are claiming many different symptoms from his mannerisms and body language to how bluntly he speaks as evidence to a media diagnosis of “something mentally wrong”. The problem with this is mental illness is not a good enough excuse to ostracize entire groups of people (in fact, entire countries at this point) in order to dehumanize, invalidate, and attack them. With his offensive speeches, he has indirectly called for his supporters to treat these people as though they are below them by any means necessary. Also, by assuming a diagnosis we group those who have a valid diagnosis with him and thereby demonize them. By supporting this cause, again more extreme with no legit diagnosis to base off of, we further the stigma of mental illness.

This isn’t to say we should not be speaking of the president’s state of mind. He is in the highest office in our country but we need to be careful on how we talk about it. By claiming Trump is the way he is simply because of symptoms he is displaying is reducing his behavior to an excuse in connection to people that already fight a societal stigma. Bigotry and ignorance are not mental illnesses nor disabilities and to reduce such actions is to say that someone with a mental illness is bad or incapable of being good. By attempting to bring a focus and blame on a supposed illness, we are taking attention from legitimate actions he is committing against real people while sharing a concept that this hateful negativity is allowed.

[irishhaines]

Accurate Representation is Critical Everywhere

Accurate representation in media is not just important for information sake. Being represented in popular culture is critical for groups, especially minorities, because it is important for an individual to feel like one with the whole. A social society cannot exist without creating some form of solidarity. Solidarity brings a sense of acceptance, belonging, and power. To live in such society, people agree to a social contract that they may otherwise turn against out of self-interest in order to be included. People who cannot see themselves in this group look to popular culture that they are, actually, part of it. Seeing themselves in media helps build this inclusion that they made not feel in their average lives. Therefore being represented accurately becomes a needed expectation and when the bar for that falls low, it begins to affect their identity.

When the roles we see for disabled characters are not only low but inaccurate and questionable as well, we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Artie Abrams, a wheelchair bound boy in Fox’s comedy-drama series Glee, ceases to be representation when Kevin McHale, who played him, got up and literally walked off set. Tom Hanks, as talented an actor as he is, plays a mentally disabled man in Forrest Gump. Despite creating an award winning classic film, Hanks is still able to go to interviews with Gump’s speech impediment. Some people claim that as an actor, they are the art themselves able to express themselves and depict a character as such. Still, just as a black actor should play a black character, a disabled actor should play a disabled character in order to make it as accurate as possible. Who could play a character with Autism better than an actor who in themselves relates to the disorder? Even so, disabled actors find themselves at a loss for jobs as they are not getting roles specifically cast for their disabilities nor are they getting parts where the disability does not seem to be a factor. When we do see disabled actors on screen though, the roles begin to become questionable specifically in their story line. Many times, we see these characters as the butt of the joke; the characters we are laughing at instead of laughing with. Other times, these characters are seen as broken, needing a cure to fix their disability and having the chance at it or having to overcome their disability in order to lead a “normal” life. Rarely are the characters included in story lines that does not revolve around the disability itself.

That is not to say that total media disability right now is false, incorrect, or just plain offensive. They may be rare, with a little searching we can find powerful representations that fit our mark. Take the show, Game of Thrones, for example. I, myself, am not a big fan but have friends and family who are crazy for the drama series. It depicts two extreme families of royalty who fight to control the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros in order to rule the Iron Throne. In it we have the character of Tyrion Lannister, a former Hand of the King in his father’s absence who now serves as Master of Coin on the Small Council. His character is mentally strong, nuanced, and of great depth. The actor who plays him, Peter Dinklage, is a little person. While his height is not completely ignored, it is purely because of its visual component and thus otherwise, disregarded from the story line. Dinklage plays this part so well that he has even won an Emmy for his performance. All things considered, his disability tends not to be an issue. This is proof, as though necessary, that a disabled character can play a character where their disability is not a factor successfully on a popular show and leaves room for an important discussion.

[irishhaines]

“If a wheelchair user can't play Beyonce, then Beyonce can't play a wheelchair use...”

Based on past classes I have had regarding sociology alone, it seems like disabled representation is less likely to be seen as a public issue. I have even witnessed the age old excuse "well maybe the other person was just better" when talking about able-bodied actors getting roles of handicapped characters over actors with that same handicap. One of my favorite quotes regarding this issue was from Maysoon Zaid, who is not only disadvantaged as an Arab-American woman but also suffers from cerebral palsy, in her hilariously informative TED talk. She said, "Disability is as visual as race. If a wheelchair user can't play Beyonce, then Beyonce can't play a wheelchair user...People with disabilities are the largest minority in the world, and we are the most underrepresented in entertainment."

We, as a society, view and further enforce disability as a social construction based off the representations we have available. When the biggest realm we see disabled actors as disabled characters is in documentaries, we only see their hardships used to enforce their struggle and special circumstances. Then when we see people with a visual disability, we tend to pity them and try to help them, regardless if they asked for it. We see them as different and force them out as social outcasts who need us to survive despite them being able to work out well enough in their daily lives without us. We share this societal treatment that they need us despite their massive numbers. By including more accurate representations on TV, in movies, and online, we can begin to change this awkward, wrong, and offensive outlook towards the disabled. 

[irishhaines]

Orange is the New Black: Leading Trophy of Sexual Representation

Orange is the New Black (OITNB) is a popular Netflix original series. Now going into its fifth season on the company, it has opened doors for many topics of discussion. It has helped establish Netflix as a legit content producer while still being a decent streaming service allowing for other originals to be made such as the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Stranger Things.  It’s immense commercial success has earned it several awards from The Emmy’s, Golden Globe’s, GLAAD, and Peabody. It’s most interesting factor though would be the level of tolerance and representation found everywhere. The cast is almost entirely female, there are a fair amount of racial characters that find their way into the spotlight each episode, and their inclusion of flashbacks enforce a class aspect for characters and shows how that may have affected how that character grew up and found themselves in prison. There is no end to the variety of characters there are and which spectrum of race and class they find themselves on, which provides a very real concept of diversity. However, it is when it comes to sexuality OITNB truly excels in a road that no other television show has attempted let alone successfully reached.

The LGBTQ+ community has had their fight for equal rights and equal representation on television. The documentary, Off the Straight and Narrow, follows this battle well up to the 1990’s. It explains that representation for this community did not exist at all until around the 1960’s where they were negatively pictured mostly in medical documentaries as someone with something wrong with them because of their sexuality. These characters portrayed shame, regret, and a need to change regarding their homosexual tendencies, forecasting that they were “bad” and “ill”. In the 1970’s, after the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders and anti-gay statues became revoked in many states, a gay culture began to expand its way into mainstream media. In the 1980’s, a conservative backlash began to form as “gay politics” to once again portray the LGBTQ+ community as a group wanting power to explore their “gay agenda”. This continued with the “epidemic of the AIDS crisis” pushing the gay man to be a villain who infects people on TV and attempts to pose threat of dangerous promiscuity in the real world.

The 1990’s saw a flood of homosexuality representation on TV. While the characters were still few and far between, they were also only often used as a tool to further enforce the strangeness of homosexuality and plot line of straight television cast. Still, they were only allowed to vocally admit to homosexuality, any physical actions of such were taboo and if there was an ongoing theme of desire or intimacy between gay characters, the network would cut it. Animation shows like The Simpsons and South Park had a leeway here as they had the chance to make a controversial joke but instead used the community as a punchline. This time they built up the stereotypical gay man as white and feminine while making the stereotypical lesbian also white and increasingly feminine, with butch women being too aggressive towards gender roles.

A sequel-like documentary, Further Off the Straight and Narrow, picks up where the original left off around the end of the 1990’s. In the half decade since the original ended, they talk about a spike of LGBTQ+ on TV, though the majority only hold roles of supporting characters that use their homosexuality as a plot device that separates them from ‘the norm’ of the heterosexual characters. An important point expressed is that of why representation is important to begin with. Especially in the United States, we are a very visual culture therefore if you do not exist on the pop culture platform the very existence of that culture is questioned. Still, their main portrayal began picking up relatable roles such as those regarding sympathy for teenage homosexuals as they grapple with their own identity or those “conform[ing] to middle class norms of respectability”. This is to say, LGBTQ+ representation still caters to the idea that only certain people are gay and thus TV sets limitations and standards to what kind of gay is on the screen.

As Dustin Kidd says in Chapter 5: Not That There’s Anything Wrong in his book, Pop Culture Freaks, “LGBT activists are increasingly focusing their attention on cultural outlets like television and film as driving forces for change, rather than just focusing on the political system.” Kidd goes on to explain how popular culture generates basic social norms thus a lack of representation effects those who identify as such. Similar tastes found in popular culture (fashion, music, television) help set social boundaries, create relationships our social society depends on, and generates solidarity. Being included in a group is critical to both the process and progress of a society. It “is the basis of social cohesion; the sense of trust that solidarity engenders is a necessary precondition before members of society will take the risky step of investing their resources, time, and selves in their societies. Without solidarity, humans are purely biological—and not social—entities.”

This is why OITNB is so important as it paves waves for other shows to form like it. Regarding sexuality, the show attempts to fit as many personas as it can. The show’s apparent main character is seemingly “goody-two-shoes” Piper Chapman who has turned herself in for past mistakes as she would like to be able to start a new life with her male fiancé, with no past blemishes. Little is it known though that she was brought into her crime past by her ex-girlfriend, Alex Vause. She represents bisexuality, which has not yet been done in a main stream show for the main character. Her first issue is when she insults the food and intern the head chef, “Red”. Red is a tough and mean Russian who sticks to a completely hetero lifestyle while being completely accepting of the sexuality around her. This character is exceptionally important when it is argued that many of the other characters are only exhibiting homosexual activity because it is the only option in an all-women prison, which is specifically argued by Guidance Counselor Healy. Healy represents the anti-gay crowd and fits in this role by being a stereotypical older, Caucasian, Christian male. Down the line, we meet other sexuality types: Big Boo is the masculine butch lesbian, Nicky is the sex-obsessed dominant lesbian, Pennsatucky plays a large role in the Religion vs Sexuality debate after she “finds Jesus”, Crazy Eyes becomes the character questioning where she fits on the spectrum going as far to represent pansexuality, Flaca and Maritza also experiment with each other as close friends, Lorna is the man-obsessed straight girl stereotype, Poussey is an African-American lesbian who dates an Asian, slightly questioning, lesbian named SoSo.

Perhaps the most important character representation would be that of Sophia Burset. Burset is an African American Male-to-Female transsexual character. Her backstory expresses the pain of a late transition as she was already married to a woman as a man and had a son while also going to a “man’s job” of a firefighter. When Burset finally had decided to transition, her backstory chronologies the difficultly of during so in a modern society. Laverne Cox, who plays Burset, is herself this identity and plays an active role in transgender rights. 

We have come strides in popular culture regarding sexuality but the transgender community remains severely underrepresented which is why Burset is critical. She is a strong, black character who remains determined to be who she is despite backlash from other prisoners as well as the prison itself when it attempts to cut her away from her transition medications. Her character herself is a comic relief but the joke never falls on her gender as the butt. Laverne Cox and her character help advance the visibility of transgender individuals in a place where there hardly seemed any.  

Various other characters exist as well who help paint a better picture of the diversity in the LGBTQ+ community. The show uses its power to make the point that there is not a single gay character but rather all different types, combining with other social aspects such as race and class. The show cleverly focuses on LGBTQ+ individuals and minorities while also being reliant on certain stereotypes in an act of relating to the general population as well as those that personally share the sexual identity provided. It takes a bunch of people that would otherwise be isolated and makes it the concept of its own society allowing the same process of solidarity to occur. The show hitting mainstream status marks an incredibly high point in LGBTQ+ history and its representation included has had remarkable effects. It opened many doors for discussion and equal rights. Two years after its premier, gay marriage in the United States was legalized. Many in the LGBTQ+ are speaking out, actors from the show use their platform to fight sexuality injustices, and altogether, the groups solidarity and emotional energy are taking popular culture by storm.

 Words: 1515

References:

Duberman, Amanda. "Surrendering to Orange Is the New Black." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 July 2013. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.

Further Off the Straight and Narrow. Dir. Katherine E. Sender. 2006. Documentary. Web.

Kidd, Dustin. 2014. Pop Culture Freaks. Westview Press.

Matlow, Orli. "7 Ways 'Orange Is The New Black' Has Changed Society Since The Season 1 Premiere." 7 Ways 'Orange Is The New Black' Has Changed Society Since The Season 1 Premiere. N.p., 11 June 2015. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.

Off the Straight and Narrow. Dir. Katherine E. Sender. 1999. Documentary. Web.

[irishhaines]

Why Gender is a Huge Candidate in the 2016 Presidential Campaign

Hillary Clinton is not the first woman to attempt to run for president of the United States of America but it is fair to say that Clinton is quickly becoming the woman who has had the highest probability of winning the campaign to become the first woman president. She is former secretary of state, US senator of New York, and first lady to previous President Bill Clinton, among other credible credentials. If one does not completely support Clinton’s views on issues, it would still be a difficult argument to say she is not qualified for the job. Yet, unfortunately, this historic achievement comes with backlash and obstacles largely revolving around the simple fact that Clinton is female. From attacking her appearance to criticizing her intensity, Clinton gains many negative comments solely from her gender and the social construction. On the other hand, Clinton has received unfair amounts of attention and promotion through this connection as well.

Clinton has been spoken negatively about regarding her appearance time and time again. For example, CBS reported a story in May 2012 concerning how she looked on a trip to China, Bangladesh, and India. During a touchdown stop in Dhaka, Bangladesh, “Clinton appeared with no makeup, natural hair, and glasses – and she made no apologies” (“Hillary Clinton's…”). Newspapers, magazines, and online articles from around the world published pictures from the trip and criticized her for “looking like a schoolgirl” and looking “tired and withdrawn”. CBS officials defended Clinton who herself spoke about it saying she’ll look as she pleases and her outside appearance is not something that deserves such a mass amount of time and attention when there are other things to worry about.

This is a powerful message from such an influential figure. It is not unusual for a woman to first be seen by her looks and appearance before her mental qualities. It today’s society beauty is a difficult but very enforced social construct around the world. According to Michael S. Kimmel’s work in “The Gendered Society”, he explains this construction of beauty as a concept that changes greatly over time and geolocation. He explains that specific exaggerations of body parts that play the strongest difference among the genders and intense focus on these differing aspects is causing negative, even dangerous, impacts on both genders. Kimmel also recognizes Naomi Wolf’s “beauty myth” which is the idea that a ‘third shift’ has been passed onto women to achieve impossible standards of beauty that takeover huge amounts of time. Another powerful article that follows these points is that of Judy Taylor in the work of “Feminist Frontiers”. Taylor challenges beauty ideology especially in the media where even advertisements that seem to express self-pride contradict their message by saying to it is okay to be your own kind of beautiful but feeling beauty, and thus the aspect of, is still critical in our lives. This focus on beauty is crucial to take in consideration when considering Clinton’s campaign because it is a danger that does not just affect or emphasize on self-conscious teens as the media may portray. Society has painted a picture of beauty that even a successful woman like Clinton cannot apparently uphold.

Another way the media has categorized Clinton’s appearance as more important than her accomplishments was in March 2016, during the current campaign. After winning primaries in Ohio and Florida, Clinton gave a victory speech cheering on her than only potential win and sharing more points and promises to her supporters (Golshan). Despite being determined and vigorous like her opponents, critics degraded the similar qualities and instead devalued her for them. Some pundits, mostly male, claimed she sounded like she was “shouting angrily” and enforced her to “Smile, you had a big night!” (McConnaughy). 

Social media caught on to this quick and soon the tag line “Stop telling Hillary to smile” took over trending headlines. This is in correlation to the recent feminist movement created by Tatyana Fazlalizadeh entitled “Stop Telling Women to Smile.” According to its official website, the project works to “address gender based street harassment by placing drawn portraits of women, composed with captions that speak directly to offenders, outside in public spaces” (Fazlalizadeh). In other words, it fights the idea that others, mainly male figures, have the authority to tell a woman how to feel and what to do thus making her feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

Clinton was particularly called out for this speech also because it seemed she was portraying what would usually be considered masculine traits. In a reading entitled, Dude, You’re a Fag by CJ Pascoe, the author explains how masculinity is constructed as toughness and aggressiveness with an absence of femininity. By portraying these aspects in her speech, Clinton defied what was expected of her through her sex. She was not “doing” her recognized gender that has been specified and socially enforced through social contexts for her (Zimmerman and West) for years resulting in backlash.

The amount of hate Clinton receives purely for running for president as a woman is remarkable. At the same time, she receives much positive attention and promotion for the same reason, allowing it to become almost an unfair advantage against her opponents. After Barack Obama became America’s first president of color, some people are hoping to make history again by voting for Clinton simply for her being the first woman president without considering her opponents or stances on the issues (McConnaughy). For example, one article online uses the headline “Why women should vote for women”. This article is not the only of its kind and argues “The most compelling reason women should vote for Hillary Clinton? Pure self-interest” (Cohen). Voting someone purely for their gender could be considered just as bad as ignoring someone because of it. By leading with the idea of “running as a woman” (McConnaughy), Clinton is becoming problematic as she enforces this notion that gender and sex is an important aspect to identity and how a person is displayed to the world. This is proclaiming that one should disregard any other aspect of the campaign and vote for her because she is a woman which is exactly what woman are fighting against; being defined and treated differently by their biological differences. It questions the validity of some followers and thus questions the whole process, devaluing Clinton as a candidate.

It is a shame that Clinton herself needs to mention her gender from time to time, sometimes even to distance herself from her competitor, Donald Trump. Dustin Kidd, in his book Popular Culture Freaks, makes several good points by bringing up Beatrice Potter Webb who speaks of gender relations. She wrote that despite women having higher positions and becoming more enrolled in the work force, they are continually being disregarded as a productive member of society through culture. This is so with the Presidential Campaign of 2016. Clinton is overly qualified for this position while Trump is simply a ‘businessman’ (with his history of bankrupts, an opinion on that declaration is to be determined) and yet, it continually comes down to gender. Several times Trump has made offensive gender based remarks to Clinton regarding her being unable to wait to use the bathroom, questioning her stamina, calling her ugly, etc. 

When a recent video (above) surfaced of Trump speaking incredibly lude terms regarding sexually assaulting women himself, the conversation turned to attack Bill Clinton, who Hillary has obvious relations and relevant history with. Trump, himself, and many of his supporters began to attack Hillary as though she were Bill himself. Many reminders had to be sent out that Bill Clinton was not the one running for president. Hillary was held as a more disrespected individual for staying with an unloyal man than Trump is for being a man who acknowledges, acts out, and borderline supports unconsented touch to women. The campaign between these two individuals is an incredible base to see how our society views gender. To some point, you can even call it a mirror effect. The media is making the biggest difference between the two not credentials or intended policies but rather an enforcement of the social structure that is gender.

Hillary Clinton is a powerful candidate in the 2016 presidential campaign. It can be seen throughout her history as well in her campaign that she is a force to be reckoned with especially when it comes to gender issues such as the wage gap and paid maternity leave. Despite having intense credentials, she finds herself in headlines largely because of being a female. It brings up the question of gender in politics and how big a factor it is and would it be considered an advantage or disadvantage. The male candidates do not nearly make as many headlines with their appearance as Clinton does but they also do not receive the attention she gets for being female. Some candidates like Donald Trump find themselves portraying the act of “doing gender” even more so by calling Clinton out for hers thus showing off stereotypical masculine traits of being controlling and superior. Clinton challenges beauty standards and the social construction of gender, masculinity, and femininity while also bringing attention to them directly and indirectly, positively and negatively. She is proof that one gender or sex cannot be contained into a single group and will continue to fight the idea that it can during the rest of the election.

 Words: 1563

RESOURCES:

Cohen, Nancy L. "Why Women Should Vote for Women." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 06 Apr. 2016. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.

Fazlalizadeh, Tatyana. "About - Stop Telling Women To Smile." About - Stop Telling Women To Smile. Cargo. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.

Golshan, Tara. "Hillary Clinton's Victory Speech Was a Turn to the Battle against Donald Trump." Vox: Policy & Politics. Vox Media, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.

"Hillary Clinton's Natural Appearance Scrutinized." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 09 May 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2016. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-natural-appearance-scrutinized/>.

Kidd, Dustin. 2014. Pop Culture Freaks. Westview Press.

Kimmel, Michael S. "Chapter 11: The Gendered Body." The Gendered Society. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.

McConnaughy, Corrine. "Do Gendered Comments Help or Hurt Hillary Clinton?" Washington Post. The Washington Post, 17 Mar. 2016. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.

Pascoe, C. J. Dude, You're a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley: U of California, 2007. Print.

Taylor, Judy. "Reading 13: Feminist Consumerism and Fat Activists: Grassroots Activism and the Dove ‘Real Beauty’ Campaign." Feminist Frontiers. 8th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print.

Zimmerman, Don H., and Candace West. Doing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.

[irishhaines]

Analyzing Being Poor in American Television

Social Class in the TV realm usually falls into two categories: blatantly stated at one point or another, or completely ignored leaving economics out the question. In this second category, characters often find themselves upon infinite amounts of wealth with no explanation as to how they go it. Often times, it can be assumed that television characters fall somewhere between the working class and middle class. When a character falls below this level, into that of poverty and poor class, his character is usually very stereotypical. There’s the poor kid that tries to hide that he’s poor, the poor kid that bullies others as an apparent mental revenge against society for his financial predicament, and the poor kid who everyone knows is a “good kid” who makes bad decisions that are either comical or dramatic in order to pull emotion from the audience watching. They are a supportive character used to push the main character’s storyline.

Take Shawn Hunter, for example. Shawn Hunter is Cory Matthew’s best friend on the 1990s hit sitcom, Boy Meets World. This show revolves around young Cory Matthew and the life problems he faces in a well written coming of age tale. In the show, Hunter serves as everything Matthew is not. He grew up with little to no parental supervising in a trailer park. This infers that Hunter’s house income did not always come through legal aspects though the show does not go into intense detail about it.

Over school years, he builds a “bad boy” reputation that brings him a popularity boost. When his character’s pranks or decisions crossover to illegal actions, usually centered around vandalism, the middle class characters of the show, usually the Matthews, ‘shed light’ to him and he decides against committing the acts. Throughout the series, his academics are a joke as he has “bigger things to worry about”. His character is used to enforce Matthew’s ideal child concept. Matthew’s grew up in a nice big house with two parents as the middle child. When he thinks about making a decision against his moral compass, it is usually Hunter that leads the way. Anytime the idea of money is brought up in the storyline, Hunter tends to be greatly incorporated. He is the “poor boy” stereotype. In the show’s spinoff, Girl Meets World (2013), set a generation ahead with Matthew’s daughter Riley, Hunter is introduced and seems to signify the American Dream. He’s worked from the slums to be a big time photographer and can afford anything he wants. He lives in a nice cabin outside New York City, until he moves closer to the Matthews. When he meets his mirror character, Riley’s best friend Maya (who grew up in a poor single parent household) he takes her out to spoil her with a shopping trip he never would have had or been able to afford at the age.

Hunter’s outline is the average one for poor representation in the media. The main character from Disney’s film Aladdin is a self-proclaimed “street rat” who makes questionable decisions (stealing) just to keep by while seeing bright lights and moral reminders that he is a good person by society’s standards (when he steals a loaf of bread with great struggle in one scene, he winds up handing over his half to two poor children he sees on the street). This idea that the poor character is somehow bad yet ‘surprises’ the audience with a good conscious starts from a young age. In fact, we can find this character in Sesame Street, an educational children’s show, started in 1969 that continues to air today, with Oscar the Grouch.  Oscar’s class is only emphasized by his home being a literal trashcan on the street. Despite further analysis questioning if he is actually poor, to many his current outside appearance and usual ‘grouchy’ mood, indicates this. Thus, when Elmo, another popular character from the show, is in search of clues and needs Oscar’s help it is almost surprising that he reels back his “bad guy reputation” to help him. Time and time again, poor characters are characterized as those constantly fighting to be in society on counts of moral behavior even though they do not fit the ideal picture elsewhere. Sometimes, though, they are put into predicaments where they cannot choose “good” over “bad”. It may be wrong to steal bread but does that make it right to allow your family to starve?

Interestingly enough, this representation of the poor jumbling up morally good and bad behavior, by society’s standards, is not too far off from the truth. In his book “Sociological Insight”, Randal Collins speaks intently on what being part of society does for one regarding their morals and identity. Collins says the environment we grow up around largely indicates what is right and what is wrong and therefore someone outside of that environment may have different perspectives on such. He specifically mentions what being isolated from a society could do to someone especially when they are aware that they are not included. He says that youths “growing up in an area of poverty and disillusionment…have no reason to be attached to normal society. They feel that society has no use for them and they have every reason to take revenge in any way they can.” This is to say that Shawn Hunter, and characters alike, create these “bad boy” personas as their way of dealing with isolation from the group and thus acting out of revenge. As they grow older and/or wiser, they become more incorporated into society and understand their basic morals.

This is not always the case though especially in American television. Recently, an American spinoff of a British show, Shameless, is on high rise in viewers. This show stars Frank Gallagher, an obnoxious drunk of a single father, and his six children. Fiona, the oldest daughter in her twenties, takes care of her three younger siblings (Debbie, 10, Carl, 9, and Liam, 2) often with the help of the next two oldest sons, Phillip and Ian, who are teens when the show premiered. It is up to the children to take care of themselves in every way but especially financially. Their class is pointed out in the opening scene of the pilot episode as they all rush to get ready for the day.

As the chaotic atmosphere continues around the kitchen table, Fiona starts handing a box around for money announcing they need more for the Electricity bill.

Fiona: How much are we short?

Debbie: $18.30

Phillip: Oh, I’m tutoring after school, I should be able to kick in like ten more.

Ian: Hey, did, uh, did Carl put in any?

Debbie: You’re almost nine, you’re going to have to start pulling your weight.

Phillip: That’s right, and get a real job, not just dipping into the collection plate at St. Tim’s

It is quite apparent that they are lower class and the show will follow the dysfunctional methods of how they live their lives accordingly. Through the seasons though, it is very apparent that the Gallaghers are not ashamed of being poor and instead, use it as an opportunity to get by. They see it they must make it work at any cost. If they must steal to eat, they will. If they must forge their neglectful father’s signature for some money, they will. For them being poor is a window into the real world and struggle thus they put more of an importance on family than they do on their class. They also express Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus as discussed in chapter 3 of Dustin Kidd’s book, Pop Culture Freaks. He explains this concept as “the structure of dispositions that we acquire from life, especially from our families”, otherwise characteristics we gain from the home we grew up in. The Gallaghers have always been poor and the way they deal with issues regarding financial struggles is almost traditional.

The Gallaghers, much like other poor families, understand that they are apart from society but instead of trying to work to integrate in it, they work to continue to stand out yet still reach the American Dream on their own means. The show shares realistic struggles throughout their class as well, therefore creating yet another fair representation of the poor society. They struggle with food, healthcare, bills, etc. The idea that the realistic aspects of the daily struggle in the lower working class is what draws viewers while also making it a unique show for doing just that. As mentioned earlier, a majority of television shows do not distinguish class but allow it to be assumed by using the poor character as a supporting character but also an enforcement of social class.

There are few shows the depict the actual lower class let alone as is. According to Kevin Biegel, as written in Todd VanDerWerff ‘s article “Where are all the blue-collar sitcoms?”, television is almost afraid to portray people. He says “audiences don’t seem terribly interested in watching comedies that deal with social issues anymore” and “writers who’ve grown up in working-class backgrounds don’t want to glamorize economic struggle, while writers who don’t come from that background have to worry about writing it accurately.” It is far easier to write about middle class, disregard class, or stick to typical stereotypes than try to display accurate poor family based sitcoms thus making them a rarity.

Words: 1578

References:

Collins, Randall. Sociological Insight: An Introduction to Nonobvious Sociology. New York: Oxford UP, 1982. Print. 

Hopp, Quinn. "Shows You Should Be Watching: Shameless." Hey, Can You Hear Me? Wordpress, 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 05 Oct. 2016.

Kidd, Dustin. 2014. Pop Culture Freaks. Westview Press. 

VanDerWerff, Todd. "Where Are All the Blue-collar Sitcoms? ." Where Are All the Blue-collar Sitcoms?  · For Our Consideration · The A.V. Club. N.p., 02 Oct. 2012. Web. 05 Oct. 2016.

[irishhaines]

Black Celebrities: Damned if They Do, Damned if They Don't

When I first heard about Colin Kaepernick, I paid little to no mind. I did not know who he was and merely saw a headline or two. All I saw was that a bunch of older white people on my social media platforms were upset about some football player sitting down during the national anthem. I had bigger problems to worry about. Up until this class, I had not read a single article on the case yet found myself defending him many times. I literally learned all about what he was doing from scattered Facebook statuses, posts, and comments.

The interesting thing about Colin Kaepernick is that it seems more people are upset about his means rather than his message. Kaepernick sat during the national anthem and during a press conference later, explained what he was doing. He specifically stated that he had “great respect for the men and women that have fought for this country. I have family, I have friends that have gone and fought for this country. And they fight for freedom, they fight for the people, they fight for liberty and justice, for everyone. That’s not happening. People are dying in vain because this country isn’t holding their end of the bargain up, as far as giving freedom and justice, liberty to everybody” (Zirin). 

Despite this clarification, people are up in arms about his disrespect to the flag, claiming it as disrespect to the military. He explained he was sitting because he felt the flag represented the country and thus the people it was oppressing. He bluntly said what it was he was protesting and sitting for and yet the media and general public are disregarding what he said and instead attacking how he did it and distorting his message. It is only one example of how black celebrities are heard but are not listened to. They are ripped apart and put between a rock and a hard place over the debate of whether to speak at all.  

The same happened regarding social media informing others on issues instead of the news being the first attention source when Jesse Williams, an actor on Grey’s Anatomy, won BET’s Humanitarian Award and used his speech to speak on police brutality against the black community (Lasher). The uproar over this black man speaking about a very real black issue on a stage on the “Black Entertainment Television (BET)” network was so intense that I understood what had gone on without having watched the award show, a video of the speech, or an article about it. Similar to Kaepernick, people wanted William’s head on a stick along with his job. It is not only black male celebrities who get criticized the second they stand up for a racial injustice they feel strongly about. The media also attacked Jada Pinkette Smith after she called for a boycott of the Oscars over the lack of diversity in the nominations as well as Beyonce for performing her song “Freedom” at the BET awards. She later released a statement geared to the black community saying, “It is up to us to take a stand and demand that they ‘stop killing us.’ We don’t need sympathy. We need everyone to respect our lives…” (Adams). Despite these celebrities having their own personal experience and recent spectacles in the news of innocent black people being murdered by police, the media and public were quick to jump to hating them for using their platforms in this way.

This rage is not only incited for the black community speaking out against police brutality, either. It is vitally clear that despite a black celebrity’s side of the argument, they are met with intense criticism. This is shown especially in a video by Tomi Lahren’s “Final Thoughts” video, “Lil Wayne the Unlikely Voice of Reason”. Tomi Lahren is an online video host who frequently makes political videos regarding current events with her Conservative opinions attached.

The original video on Facebook currently has 2.5 million views, 83K “Reactions”, and over 45K shares. Simply, the video has gotten fairly popular. It includes a segment of an interview of Lil Wayne being asked about his views on Colin Kaepernick to which he replies that people would not want him to weigh in on the subject because he, himself, has “never dealt with racism”. Lahren goes off about how the “Black Lives Matter crew” attacked the rapper and applauds Wayne for being a “black person who rejects the victimhood narrative”. While Lahren is by no means a credible news source, from a sociological perspective her suddenly crediting Wayne as the “voice of reason” and her fans storming the streets with this idea speaks volumes. He has become the black voice for the anti-argument of police brutality after making a single comment, that being only that he himself cannot relate to Kaepernick’s fight.

While many black celebrities have taken the public road on such racial issues, many have decided to opt out of making statements or ‘choosing sides’. Though we obviously talk more about celebrities that do put themselves in the spotlights over these issues, no black celebrity is safe from criticism. People call out those who decide not to hashtag their tweets ‘#BlackLivesMatter’ or post to Instagram an artsy picture with a stop-the-violence esque caption. Before Nelly, a rapper famous for hit songs such as “Hot in Herre”, participated in his own “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” chant at a charity event, he was called out for silence over Mike Brown, being a native of St. Louis himself. People felt that since Mike Brown, a Black male teenager who was apparently innocent and shot dead by police, was from Ferguson, Missouri, not far off from Nelly’s previous home aligned with his race, it was only fit for him to take a stand (Pendleton). Even more recently, Cam Newton, quarterback for the Carolina Panthers, was asked his thoughts on Kaepernick’s protest, he quickly avoided the question. The media took off with his avoidance, claiming he was running from a chance to weigh in and make the stage more powerful.

Whether black celebrities say something or nothing, it is an issue. Society groups the black community together and claims that if it an injustice for one, it is an injustice for all. At the same time, they mark each as an individual and the token black voice for their race on the issue. They are first put into a predicament over whether they should comment at all before than judged increasingly over what they choose to say. Regardless what they choose, they are a matter to speak of in conversation.

Though there is a certain response level expected when it comes to conflict, these celebrities are not given the choice to use their first amendment right of free speech. They are first black, a voice of the race each individually, before they are than American. This idea is specifically referenced in Chapter 2 of Pop Culture Freaks by Dustin Kidd. In this chapter, Kidd speaks of W.E.B. Du Bois, a sociologist between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the civil rights movement, and his concept of double consciousness in considering being black and American in “a country where…it seemed one simply could not be both”. He goes on to explain this position as the idea that a black identity was, and arguably still is, seen as less than an American identity. “The black American is a stranger within his own society, who can never fully escape being a stranger” (Kidd, 36).  

This can be said about today’s black celebrities. They never truly fit an identity other than black or American and in many instances, they seemingly have to choose. They are wealthy, therefore they are labeled as different than their stereotypical poor community. They all come from the ‘rough and tough neighborhood’ and ‘clawed their way from the bottom’ and when they do not actually come from such a hard background, their stories are changed or ignored. They either fit the stereotypes or they do not and when they do not, new ones are found to chain to them. They are forced in to a spotlight simply for being black and thus whatever they say or do not say is broken down and berated as not being “black enough” for anyone’s standards. When black celebrities try to weigh in on anything, it is wrong or they do not say the right thing yet if they say nothing instead to avoid upsetting anyone, they are still wrong. Thus, they are continually disregarded. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

 Words: 1439

 References:

 Adams, J. X. (2016, July 14). The Final Call. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_103220.shtml

 Kidd, Dustin. 2014. Pop Culture Freaks. Westview Press.

 Lasher, M. (2016, June 27). Read The Full Transcript of Jesse Williams's BET Speech. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://time.com/4383516/jesse-williams-bet-speech-transcript/

 Pendleton, T. (2014, August 15). Twitter Drags Nelly For Ill-Timed Tweet, Phaedra Parks Meets Mike Brown’s Family. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://blackamericaweb.com/2014/08/14/twitter-drags-nelly-for-ill-timed-tweet-phaedra-parks-meets-mike-browns-family/2/

Steele, D. (2016, September 01). Cam Newton runs from chance to stand up by taking no sides on Colin Kaepernick. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/cam-newton-comments-colin-kaepernick-no-support-backs-away-panthers-qb-49ers-protest-sit-down/83zdyq2rw5xb1pqxz0pu4whe5

 Zirin, D. (2016, August 30). America Needs to Listen to What Colin Kaepernick Is Actually Trying to Say. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from https://www.thenation.com/article/america-needs-to-listen-to-what-colin-kaepernick-is-actually-trying-to-say/